JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
(Through Virtual Mode)
Mohan Lal, J.
Ramesh Chander – Petitioner
versus
State of Jammu & Kashmir through Incharge Police Station Crime Branch Jammu. – Respondent
CRMC No.204 of 2013 and IA No.250 of 2013
Decided on 13.9.2023
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1977 – Sections 5(2) r/w Sections 420, 409, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 227 and 482 – Misuse of official position and misappropriation of public money – Framing of charge – At stage of framing charges against accused court is required to evaluate material and documents on record with a view to find out if facts taken at their face value disclose existence of all ingredients constituting alleged offence – Court for said limited purpose has power to sift evidence – There are allegations against petitioner for hatching of criminal conspiracy alongwith other accused for committing forgery/manipulating fake official record committing criminal breach of trust – Trial court has not evaluated material and documents on record to view on face of it whether it discloses all ingredients of offences attributed to petitioner – There is no material to the effect that petitioner had dishonest or fraudulent intention – There is no sufficient ground for proceeding against petitioner/accused – Impugned order framing charges against petitioner quashed. (Paras 9 and 10)
Result: Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner by the medium of instant petition preferred under Section 561-A [now Section 482 Cr.PC] of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as to the “Code”) has assailed order dated 30.07.2013 rendered by the Court of Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge (Anti-Corruption) Jammu, whereby, charges have been framed against the petitioner in FIR No. 21/2010 under Sections 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act r/w Sections 420, 409, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, RPC in case titled State of J&K Vs. Babu Ram & Ors.,
2. Aggrieved of and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 30.07.2013, petitioner has assailed it’s legality, propriety and correctness and has sought it’s quashment on the following grounds:—
(i) that a complaint was forwarded to Crime Branch by Parvez Ahmed Malik Director CAPD Jammu vide his office letter No. 79/G/PV/1815-17 dated 25.08.2010, wherein, it was alleged that on 05.08.2010 incharge Asst. Director CAPD Udhampur reported that he conducted a surprise checking of food store Udhampur wherein a huge quantity of food grains/sugar was found short in food store; the committee constituted to conduct physical verification submitted it’s report which tentatively revealed a shortage of food grain/sugar in food store CAPD Udhampur costing Rs.35,06099/- whereby incharge store keeper Babu Ram was placed under suspension who by misusing his official position and in conspiracy with other officials misappropriated the aforesaid amount causing huge loss to the state exchequer, the said accused remained absconding alongwith records on this FIR No. 21/2010 for offences under Sections 420, 409, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, RPC r/w 5(2) P.C. Act Svt. 2006 was registered in Crime Branch; during the course of investigation it was found that accused Babu Ram was posted as incharge Store Keeper Udhampur vide order No. 1646-48/AD/CAPD/Udh dated 01.02.2010 by Asstt. Director CAPD Udhampur namely Sh. T.P. Singh and subsequently he took over charge of food store Udhampur on 01.02.2010, seized record was scrutinized by crime branch Jammu and found that 8704.96 qtls of ration amounting to Rs. 64,62,244/- as the PDS rates were misappropriated by the said accused Babu Ram in connivance with other officials; besides this, during investigation it was found that an amount of Rs. 8,40,000/- & Rs. 7,83,500/- was deposited in Govt. Treasury by the said accused fraudulently on behalf of ration dealers but the permit has not been issued in respect of this ration; scrutiny of seized record reveals that 42 numbers of permits treasury vouchers against which ration was fraudulently shown issued to the dealers were not reflected in issue register, 7 number of trucks loaded with different kinds of food grains were dispatched to food store Udhampur from different units but the same were not entered in stock/receipt register by the said accused, the shortage of food grains misappropriated by the accused during the course of investigation was worked out to the tune of Rs. 74,07,370.13 including cost of empty bags, it was established during investigation that Sh. T.P Singh the then Asstt. Director CAPD Udhampur had issued posting order of accused Babu Ram as incharge store keeper food store Udhampur fully aware of the fact that class 4th employee cannot be posted at any responsible force;
(ii) that after the transfer of T.P Singh, Sh. Ramesh Chander was posted as Asstt. Director CAPD Udhampur and during his period Sh. Babu Ram functioned as TSO Udhampur, the daily supply from stores was monitored by TSO and Asstt. Director, the store keeper submits by weekly statement of all the receipts/dispatches of ration to TSO/AD but they failed to monitor the functioning of store for their ulterior motives which is also violation of PDS control order 2001, by weekly and monthly off take statements were also not checked by officers concerned during their posting which indicates their connivance with store keepers in misappropriating the food grains, all these
Yogesh Alias Sachin Jagdish Joshi vs. State of Maharashtra
Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration and Ors.
Niranjan Singh Karam Singh vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijaya and Ors.
SupremeToday
At the stage of framing charges, the court must evaluate the material and documents on record to determine if the facts disclose all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The court has th....
Charges under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act require a substantive offence to be present and can be altered by the court before judgment, according to legal precedents.
The power of the judge to sift and weigh the evidence for finding a prima facie case against the accused and the presumption of the alleged offence against the accused are crucial legal principles es....
At the charge framing stage, courts must accept prosecution materials as true without conducting a mini-trial, determining only if prima facie evidence exists to proceed.
The court ruled that charges framed against an accused must have sufficient evidence of demand and acceptance to uphold prosecutorial validity; otherwise, it constitutes an infringement of fundamenta....
At the charge framing stage, only a prima facie case needs to be established, without detailed examination of evidence.
The court upheld the trial court's decision to frame charges, emphasizing that only a prima facie case is required at this stage, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The High Court's jurisdiction to quash an order framing charges is limited to cases of patent error of jurisdiction and does not extend to re-appreciation of evidence or interference with the trial c....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.